mikeg%watson.c3@lanl.gov (M.P.Gerlek) (04/04/89)
From article <3861@mipos3.intel.com>, by nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess): > In article <10099@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, gregg@ihlpb (Wonderly) writes: > >>...Lisp is not a common language base for most people. A more procedural >>language such as TPU looks and feels more comfortable... > > Hmmm. Easier for *you*, yes, not easier for me. > I think that lisp is an excellent choice as an editor's "native: language. A _lot_ easier for me, though! Unfortunately, playing the my-language-better- than-your-language game is just as futile as the my-editor-better-than-your- editor game. (Nonetheless, read on...) > It's a big win to have the language that you write your editor init > file with be the same language that you type to the editor's command > interpreter. If you're in TPU, looking at a buffer containing the TPU > code you defined in your example, how easy is it to change the buffer, > and then instantly re-evaluate the definition, so that the modified > procedure is now available in your editing session? A matter of three or four keystrokes. Note that the "classic" TPU editor EVE, supplied by DEC, was okay but pretty much unwieldy - a hulking beast without much user-friendliness, _bad_ choices of keybindings, lack of certain elementary windowing manipulations, etc. A good start for those who wanted to learn TPU and extend EVE to EMACS strength, but only "better than EDT" in its native mode. The DEC user community (via DECUS) wrote many, many extensions to EVE over the past few years to accomodate - with the release of VMS 5.0, DEC incorporated many of the public domain ideas, made a nice extension-interface, and generally made up the defficencies. > [much proud boasting of portabiltiy of EMACS deleted] EVE v2.0 under VMS 5.0 is _as_ (more?) powerful than ol' EMACS -- UNDER VMS. Though a tried and true TPU freak, I'll be the first to admit its useless outside of the VMS world. (But, then again, what else is there? %-} A big TPU drawback is the nasty contortions req'd to do system calls out of TPU. Does EMACS (specifically under VMS) handle the VMS calling conventions and such? > ...porting my Emacs environment to my Sun 386i was as simple as rcp'ing > my .emacs file... I recently was thrown into a UNIX world (gasp!) and raised a few eyebrows by damning vi and using microEMACS... Though not as fully functional as my version of VMS EVE, it wasn't to tough to bind the EMACS keys to fit my EVE style. > I would also be willing to bet that, if RMS had the motivation, he could > port Emacs over to VMS and optimize it so that it *would* run faster > than TPU. Hmm. If RMS could make EMACS conform to all the VMS stanards (including making it callable! - see info-vax of late) I'd think about considering it... Does He follow comp.editors? Are you listening, Mr. Stallman? ` 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: I'm only an undergrad, they don't Question." ' ` tell me anything worth disclaiming. '
templon@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (04/05/89)
Well, it just ain't true! Sorry I don't have the details, but there
was an article in Digital Review (tm) a few weeks back (maybe someone
with access to back issues can confirm this and give more info)
describing a product that allowed TPU source to be run (and compiled
maybe? don't remember) on Un*x machines. had some catchy name like TPU/X
or somesuch. the bottom line is that you CAN have TPU outside of VMS, so
don't write it off too quickly!
I must confess that as a former TPU hacker who recently switched to
GNU Emacs, i have to agree with everybody. YES GNU EMACS is TOO SLOW. and
TPU needs to be what GNU is, which is something that you can run "as is"
and have a nice powerful editor, and can tweak if you need to. instead we
get dumb EVE and a munged EDT-emulator and lots of hype over how WE can
do anything with it. My statement:
I DON'T WANT TO PROGRAM, I WANT TO *EDIT*!
Quit fooling around! Give us ALL a good editor. I think GNU comes
closest to what we want, but it really is a resource hog...
jtgaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver) (04/05/89)
Folks, what is the definition of Emacs? No, not as the archaic acronym "Editing MACroS", which is inaccurate with respect to the modern editors that are understood to fall under the Emacs category. What defining features need an editor posess to be fall within the Emacs group? From what I've read in this newsgroup, can we safely call TPU an Emacs? Regards, [Ag] gaynor@rutgers.edu
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (04/08/89)
gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes: >From what I've read in this newsgroup, can we safely call TPU an Emacs? No, but you could call Emacs a TPU. (Text Processing Utility) :-) -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se I used to say "It could have been worse, it could have been Pepsi", then I drank a Diet Coke...
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (04/09/89)
Actually I think the Subject line that this discussion has acquired is
most hilarious...
--woodstock
--
"What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes
woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate