lisa@ctr.columbia.edu (Lisa Young) (10/18/89)
I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM mainframe editor lookalike). Since I know many programmers out there feel strongly about their editor of choice and also that many people support Epsilon (Stallman's EMACS) I thought I would ask the networld for help. So, to anyone who is interested, what are the advantages and disadvantages of Epsilon over IBM PE and SPF/PC??? Please send your replies to me and I will post a summary later for any of those curious in miscellany of opinions about PC editors.
abh0@GTE.COM (Andrew Hudson) (10/19/89)
Lugaru software of Pittsburgh, the folks who put EMACS on the PC with EPSILON, apparently have a new version out. Would someone care to publicate the new features and differences of this new version? - Andrew Hudson -- "I remember, darkness doubled, I recall, lightning struck itself."
lowey@dvinci.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (10/21/89)
> I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for > programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM > mainframe editor lookalike). My reply is why bother? Personally I use the free MicroEMACS 3.10 editor. I know that if someone came along and told me I had to use a different editor, I'd tell them where to go real quick. Why not just let the programmer decide what he/she wants to use. -- Kevin Lowey
lisa@ctr.columbia.edu (Lisa Young) (10/26/89)
>I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for >programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM >mainframe editor lookalike). > >Since I know many programmers out there feel strongly about their >editor of choice and also that many people support Epsilon (Stallman's >EMACS) I thought I would ask the networld for help. > >So, to anyone who is interested, what are the advantages and >disadvantages of Epsilon over IBM PE and SPF/PC??? > >Please send your replies to me and I will post a summary later for any >of those curious in miscellany of opinions about PC editors. I promised a summary so here it is: *************************************************************************** Return-Path: <@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu:DLV101@PSUVM.BITNET> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 89 22:50 EDT From: "Dwaine L. VanBibber" <DLV101%PSUVM@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu> To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor SPF/PC and ELSILON aren't even in the same league. Here's why... Let me quote Personal TeX Inc. because they sum things up quite nicely. "Epsilon uses the popular EMACS keyboard commands. These key bindings are logical and intuitive, and once mastered allow lightning-quick editing of files. If you wish to reassign any key-bindings, Epsilon allows for quick, easy and complete remapping of any and all commands." Epsilon now features complete undo and redo capability. Epsilon remembers the changes that you make to any and all buffers, and allows you to step back throu gh the editing commands that you have done, one by one. If you go too far, Epsilon also has full redo, giving you complete freedom." "......What's more, Epsilon has multitasking capability, so that you can edit buffers while TeX is compiling in the background." I have used SPF/PC for programming, and I find that it slows me down tremendous ly. I do not own Epsilon because I prefer to stick to inexpensive shareware editors, but if money was no object that's probably the one I'd get. The edito rs that I have used on a PC include: KEDIT 4.0 by Mansfield Software (not bad at all, and reasonably priced. Its set up to emulate XEDIT nicely, if needed.) , Sedt, (similar to the VAX editor edt...very good, and cheap!). I plan to try MicroEMACS as well. --Dwaine Return-Path: <drcook@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 89 09:15:16 -0400 From: drcook@hubcap.clemson.edu (david richard cook) To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor lisa@ctr.columbia.edu (Lisa Young): > I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for > programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM > mainframe editor lookalike). Epsilon is an editor that will continually amaze you with its features. I have used Epsilon for almost 4 years and think it is one of the best pieces of software I have ever seen. The documentation is written for programmers (so it won't insult your intellegence). Technical support (I have used it twice in 4 years) is excellent. The main advantages of Epsilon are best summarized in the Lugaru's magazine ads. For me, Epsilon's main advantage is Emacs compatibility. I am often on different computers, with different operating systems, and Emacs is on every one of them. Having taken the time to learn Emacs, I have no reason, or inclination, to learn any other editor. I have found Epsilon to be the most faithful recreation of Emacs available on the PC. The disadvantage of Epsilon is the learning curve required before you will realize the full power of this editor. This is an editor for serious programming, and not casual programming. The new user may feel overwelmed by Epsilon's robust command set. My experience has led me to conclude that the more powerful the software the longer it takes to master. I have no doubt that my productivity as a programmer has increased since I began using Epsilon. Epsilon has been worth every penny it cost. David R. Cook 1, answered,, Return-Path: <@tektronix.tek.com:toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 89 07:55:30 PDT From: Tom Almy <toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com> To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.msdos.programmer In-Reply-To: <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Cc: Well I use Epsilon (and various EMACS editors on other machines). And I wouldn't change to the IBM editor. But I think you are using the wrong approach. The choice of a programmers editor is a very personal thing. Much like choosing a mate. There is very little agreement about what editor is best (and that is an exageration!). I've seen people using editors that I wouldn't want to be married to, ops, I mean use, in a million years. And they are perfectly happy. As long as the user is happy with his/her editor, there is no reason to force a change, as the editor choice doesn't affect anyone else. You shouldn't have a standard editor. The best thing you can do is to get one copy each of all the different editors (you should probably also include BRIEF, which also has a big following), and let the potential users read the manuals and try the editors out. Features of Epsilon that I like that may or may not be in other editors: 1. Files can be of any size. 2. Supports all 256 character codes/no line size limits, so can actually use to view/edit binary files. I find this nice in debugging complex printer driver programs. 3. Multiple windows, multiple files (#files != #windows, necessarily). Can utilize any display size you can get your system to drop into (I regularly use 132x60 to look at assembler listing files). 4. Process window to run compiler or other DOS programs without leaving editor (in fact you can continue editing while compiler is running) 5. Editor can "goto next error", opening correct source file if necessary. 6. "C" mode handles indentation and keeps track of ( and { nesting. 7. Incremental search. Supports "regular expression" matching. 8. Tagging of procedures. You put the cursor on a procedure name, hit a key and the editor puts you at the definition of that procedure. 9. Undo/Redo for "unlimited" number of keystrokes. Cut and paste operations can use multiple cut buffers (kept in a circular queue) so you can do several cuts before having to paste anything back. 10. Keyboard is completely reconfiguarable, code for all commands (written in EEL, basically an extension of C) is included so you can modify or add commands. For instance, I have added support for C++ extensions and a LISP mode. I modified Epsilons automatic filename completion to ignore files with extensions COM, EXE, OBJ, etc. But it's still a very subjective decision. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply Return-Path: <@relay.cs.net:abh0@gte.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 89 10:41:02 EDT From: Andrew Hudson <abh0@gte.com> To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.msdos.programmer In-Reply-To: <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA Cc: Epsilon is a fast editor. A reasonable workable subset of the commands can be learned by ANYBODY in 20 minutes. This editor can do ANYTHING. This is because it is programmable in a extension language which is very much like C. It's easy. You can save the state of your editor, variables, keyboard macros, etc. You can run a DOS process in a window, and everything that prints can be saved in a file. Its EASY TO USE. It's just like all the other EMACS editors on lots of different computers (portable). And best of all, it has nothing to do with IBM. - Andrew Hudson Likes EMACS. Does not like IBM. -- "I remember, darkness doubled, I recall, lightning struck itself." From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor Keywords: New Epsilon features? Date: 20 Oct 89 02:37:32 GMT Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA I am beta-testing Epsilon 4.11 on 386/ix. It has no new features since 4.0, except that it does run under 386/ix which previous versions didn't very well. It's just like PC Epsilon, which is high praise indeed. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Massachusetts has over 100,000 unlicensed drivers. -The Globe Return-Path: <microsoft!robertre@uunet.uu.net> Posted-Date: Thu Oct 19 11:49:12 1989 From: microsoft!robertre@uunet.uu.net To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Date: Thu Oct 19 11:49:12 1989 To: uunet!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ctrsol!lisa Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.msdos.programmer In-Reply-To: <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> Organization: Microsoft Corp. Cc: In article <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> you write: >I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for >programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM >mainframe editor lookalike). > >Since I know many programmers out there feel strongly about their >editor of choice and also that many people support Epsilon (Stallman's >EMACS) I thought I would ask the networld for help. > >So, to anyone who is interested, what are the advantages and >disadvantages of Epsilon over IBM PE and SPF/PC??? > >Please send your replies to me and I will post a summary later for any >of those curious in miscellany of opinions about PC editors. Just a quick comment, if you want replies by mail you really should put a path in your .signature. Otherwise we rely on the brains of the mailer to come up with one that will work, and it's usually unreliable. You can be pretty sure that for every reply that actually makes it to you several others didn't. My latest favorite editor is called Slick, and is by the guy who wrote the PE series for IBM. He has since left to form his own company. It is sort of a cross between Epsilon and PE2. It runs under DOS and OS/2. Contact MicroEdge, Inc. PO Box 2367, Fairfax, VA 22031. (703) 670-4575. The person answering the phone is the author, so consequently support is awesome ("Hey Clarke, who do you do ....?") Having used it and Epsilon, I would say that they are equally capable, and it's clearly a generation ahead of PE. The major advantage is that I think he's selling it for around $90 nowadays, so as far as bang for the buck goes it's awesome. Epsilon/Slick have pretty much the same multi-window capabilities, macros, rebindable keys, process in a buffer, etc. Epsilon is popular (IMHO) because it's easy for people who are used to EMACS editors on other systems to get going with. If you're starting fresh, take a look at Slick. As far as Epsilon/PE goes, I'd say Epsilon is the clear winner in overall power and usability, though it might be because I'm more comfortable with it. Don't ignore Brief either. It is an extremely powerful editor, with the best undo facility I have ever seen. I used it for a long time, with great success. I'd highly recommend it. Editors are like religion. The best one is the one you're comfortable with. If someone you work with is a guru in one or the other, by definition that's the best one for you to use, because you'll learn the most about it and be the most effective. Good luck. Hope this makes it. -- Robert Reichel robertre%microsof@beaver.washington.edu or {decvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!robertre --- Robert Reichel robertre%microsof@beaver.washington.edu or {decvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!robertre From kan@dg-rtp.dg.com Sun Oct 22 22:22:26 1989 Received: from columbia.edu by sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (4.0/5.10) id AA00189; Sun, 22 Oct 89 22:22:21 EDT Received: from relay.cs.net by columbia.edu (5.59++/0.3) with SMTP id AA01561; Sun, 22 Oct 89 22:21:37 EDT Received: from dg-rtp.dg.com by RELAY.CS.NET id ab14791; 22 Oct 89 10:56 EDT Received: from mutley.rtp.dg.com (mutley) by dg-rtp.dg.com (1.00/4.7) id AA16035; Sun, 22 Oct 89 11:39:19 edt via SMTP Received: by mutley.rtp.dg.com (1.00/4.7) id AA09511; Sun, 22 Oct 89 11:39:36 edt Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 11:39:36 edt From: Victor Kan <kan@dg-rtp.dg.com> Message-Id: <8910221539.AA09511@mutley.rtp.dg.com> To: lisa@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: The "Best" PC editor Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.msdos.programmer In-Reply-To: <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Status: R In article <1989Oct17.201657.4450@ctr.columbia.edu> you write: >I need to convince some people that Epsilon is a better editor for >programming in C than the IBM Professional Editor, or SPF/PC (an IBM >mainframe editor lookalike). I know little about those specific editors, but any editor by IBM (or looks like something made by IBM) must be horrible, especially for C programming :-). > >Since I know many programmers out there feel strongly about their >editor of choice and also that many people support Epsilon (Stallman's >EMACS) I thought I would ask the networld for help. Epsilon is NOT Stallman's Emacs. It looks like it and has some of it's more powerful features, e.g. regular expressions and a shell buffer. But for a GNU look/feel-alike on the PC, Freemacs is the way to go. Of course Freemacs doesn't have nearly all of GNU's features. Epsilon is highly programmable. It comes with an EEL (Epsilon Extension Language) compiler that makes it as programmable as you can get. Most of Epsilon is written in EEL. I doubt those IBM editors have anything like this. At most, they'll have a named macro facility. > >So, to anyone who is interested, what are the advantages and >disadvantages of Epsilon over IBM PE and SPF/PC??? Epsilon is FAST!!!!! It has a practically unlimited file size capacity using demand paged virtual memory. It has a practically unlimited number of buffers for *REAL* C programmers who have lots of source files to play with. It can display several windows on the screen at once, limited only by the size of your display. The latest version (4.0) supports the large screen text modes of EGA/VGA displays. Epsilon has the classic Emacs-style incremental search (a fairly fast one too!) that is essentially an on-demand content addressable text system. For good typists, there's no faster way to put the cursor on a visually found typo. Epsilon has a REAL shell-buffer, unlike those cheap imitations in editors like Brief and Micro-Emacs. Those others really just fork a shell and execute normally, while the editor is suspended, waiting idly by as the shell executes. Epsilon allows you to do shell stuff, e.g. COMPILING!, while you continue editing!!!! A disadvantage of Epsilon is that it will not work with TSR's too well because Epsilon doesn't use the normal I/O calls. Epsilon is practically an operating system. For example, if you try to write a file to a floppy drive that has no disk in it, Epsilon can actually tell you that the drive is not ready. It won't give you that damned Abort, Ignore, Retry? message that can trash other editors without saving out your changes. Epsilon has on-line documentation, an apropos function, fast and easy macros, too many features to list here. Even though it's got a plethora of features, it's not a memory hog. Tell your friends to forget those IBM editors and go with Epsilon. In fact, if they refuse to use Epsilon or some of the better Emacses, they don't deserve to be your friend :-)! > >Please send your replies to me and I will post a summary later for any >of those curious in miscellany of opinions about PC editors. > -- | Victor Kan | I speak only for myself. | *** | Data General Corporation | Edito cum Emacs, ergo sum. | **** | 62 T.W. Alexander Drive | Columbia Lions Win, 9 October 1988 for | **** %%%% | RTP, NC 27709 | a record of 1-44. Way to go, Lions! | *** %%% *************************************************************************** Lisa Fox lmf@shibuya.cc.columbia.edu or lisa@ctr.columbia.edu [this .sig is brought to you by popular demand] ***************************************************************************
chris@iesd.auc.dk (Christian J. Callsen) (10/27/89)
In article <1989Oct26.150159.3666@ctr.columbia.edu> lisa@ctr.columbia.edu (Lisa Young) writes: > > lots of stuff deleted .... Epsilon sounds pretty good to me, I have not heard of ever though ;^) .. Is it *Ware (shareware, freeware etc.) ???? -Chris :^) -- _____________ : Med Venlig Hilsen & Greetings From / ennyn durin \ : /* aran moria *\ : Chris J. Callsen [ chris@iesd.auc.dk ] /** . . . **\ :