cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) (04/09/91)
In article <7704@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> steiner@informatik.uni-kl.de Donald Steiner writes: Being thrust into the MS-DOS world by purchasing a laptop, I have a few questions regarding GNU Emacs-like programs for MS-DOS. From perusing the various newsgroups it seems like there are three dominant ones: Freemacs & MG, both PD, and Epsilon's commercial product... I have had the same question. I wanted a program that would be compatible with the GNU Emacs that I use at work. I especially wanted some of GNU's features such as multi-step UNDO and extensibility. The most GNU-like program is Freemacs, but the 64K file size limit is a real problem for me, and it doesn't have UNDO. Going by people's comments about other PC Emacs's, I think that they would also fail to meet my needs. But I have heard that the Brief editor is fully configurable and extensible, *and* has multi-step UNDO and a lot of power. If it's configurable, maybe it could be given an Emacs-like interface. I'd be interested in others' experience with Brief, and opinions about how well it could be made to emulate Emacs commands. Christopher Brewster Cray Research Inc. 612: 683-5759 cb@timbuk.cray.com
gumbyltd@ronzoni.berkeley.edu (Dmitry Gokhman) (04/09/91)
In article <CB.91Apr8152627@tamarack12.timbuk> cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: >In article <7704@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> steiner@informatik.uni-kl.de > >Donald Steiner writes: > > Being thrust into the MS-DOS world by purchasing a laptop, I have a > few questions regarding GNU Emacs-like programs for MS-DOS. From > perusing the various newsgroups it seems like there are three dominant > ones: Freemacs & MG, both PD, and Epsilon's commercial product... > >I have had the same question. I wanted a program that would be compatible with >the GNU Emacs that I use at work. I especially wanted some of GNU's features >such as multi-step UNDO and extensibility. The most GNU-like program is >Freemacs, but the 64K file size limit is a real problem for me, and it doesn't >have UNDO. Going by people's comments about other PC Emacs's, I think that they >would also fail to meet my needs. But I have heard that the Brief editor is >fully configurable and extensible, *and* has multi-step UNDO and a lot of power. >If it's configurable, maybe it could be given an Emacs-like interface. I'd be >interested in others' experience with Brief, and opinions about how well it >could be made to emulate Emacs commands. > >Christopher Brewster >Cray Research Inc. >612: 683-5759 >cb@timbuk.cray.com I've found Brief to be excellent with respect to all of the features described above. It probably could be given an Emacs-like interface but why ?!?!?!?! Brief interface is infinitely better than that of Emacs. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// - Mr. Gumby * \oo7 Dmitry Gokhman -> gumbyltd@math.berkeley.edu says: `/v/-* University of Cauliflower MY BRAIN HURTS J L Broccoli CA 94720 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) (04/09/91)
In article <CB.91Apr8152627@tamarack12.timbuk> cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: >In article <7704@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> steiner@informatik.uni-kl.de > >Donald Steiner writes: > > Being thrust into the MS-DOS world by purchasing a laptop, I have a > few questions regarding GNU Emacs-like programs for MS-DOS. From > perusing the various newsgroups it seems like there are three dominant > ones: Freemacs & MG, both PD, and Epsilon's commercial product... > >I have had the same question. I wanted a program that would be compatible with >the GNU Emacs that I use at work. I especially wanted some of GNU's features >such as multi-step UNDO and extensibility. The most GNU-like program is >Freemacs, but the 64K file size limit is a real problem for me, and it doesn't >have UNDO. You should both look at Epsilon, from Lugaru Software (412/421-5911). The extension language is a C variant (eel), not lisp. In *my* book this makes it better than EMACS. Most of the editor is in eel, and all eel sources are provided. At slightly under $200, it ain't cheap - but since it's your number one tool, I consider it unwise to skimp. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
woiccak@acsu.buffalo.edu (thomas s woiccak) (04/09/91)
As a poor, pleading college student, Would any one not feel guilty about
mailing me a copy (I'd pay for mailing costs) of the editor. I really need
one editor to grow acoustomed to. (I have feemacs, a VI clone, brief,
uemacs for Win3, ... and am not satisfied!!). Please no flames!! If I had
the money, or knew about Epsilon before Breif, I'd probably not be doing
this... Besides, if it turns out to be good, I'd need the manual to really
make it what I want and WILL go buy it when I have (some money) = (a job).
Oh, Really look at Brief, though. Unmodified, it has one of the best user
interfaces, I think.
tom
--
-Thomas S. Woiccak, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Comp. Sci.
INTERNET: woiccak@acsu.buffalo.edu
BITNET: woiccak%acsu.buffalo.edu@ubvm.bitnet , v058p7u4@ubvms.bitnet
UUCP: ...!{rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!woiccak robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (R.Meunier 8516) (04/09/91)
In article <CB.91Apr8152627@tamarack12.timbuk> cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: >I have had the same question. I wanted a program that would be compatible with >the GNU Emacs that I use at work. I especially wanted some of GNU's features >such as multi-step UNDO and extensibility. The most GNU-like program is >Freemacs, but the 64K file size limit is a real problem for me, and it doesn't >have UNDO. Going by people's comments about other PC Emacs's, I think that they >would also fail to meet my needs. But I have heard that the Brief editor is >fully configurable and extensible, *and* has multi-step UNDO and a lot of power. >If it's configurable, maybe it could be given an Emacs-like interface. I'd be >interested in others' experience with Brief, and opinions about how well it >could be made to emulate Emacs commands. And there is also a clone of BRIEF on the net name CRISP. CRISP v1.9 is near version 2.1 of BRIEF and v1.11 coming in a few days is compatible with version 3.0 of BRIEF. -- Robert Meunier Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec Ingenieur 1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (R.Meunier 8516) (04/09/91)
In article I writes: >In article <CB.91Apr8152627@tamarack12.timbuk> cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: ||I have had the same question. I wanted a program that would be compatible with ||the GNU Emacs that I use at work. I especially wanted some of GNU's features ||suuch as multi-step UNDO and extensibility. The most GNU-like program is ||Freemacs, but the 64K file size limit is a real problem for me, and it doesn't ||have UNDO. Going by people's comments about other PC Emacs's, I think that they ||would also fail to meet my needs. But I have heard that the Brief editor is ||fully configurable and extensible, *and* has multi-step UNDO and a lot of power. ||If it's configurable, maybe it could be given an Emacs-like interface. I'd be ||interested in others' experience with Brief, and opinions about how well it ||could be made to emulate Emacs commands. | | And there is also a clone of BRIEF on the net name CRISP. CRISP v1.9 is |near version 2.1 of BRIEF and v1.11 coming in a few days is compatible with |version 3.0 of BRIEF. | I forgot to mention that CRISP as been ported on many UNIX platform and could be get by FTP at uunet.uu.net -- Robert Meunier Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec Ingenieur 1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
ab2r@quads.uchicago.edu (Marshall Abrams) (04/11/91)
In article <6455@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (R.Meunier 8516) writes: > I forgot to mention that CRISP as been ported on many UNIX platform >and could be get by FTP at uunet.uu.net Has CRISP been ported to VMS? Anyone know of a Brief clone that would run on VMS? I'm personally an Emacs fan, but the folks at work are in love with Brief, and they wish they had it on our Vax. (Brief's an excellent editor; I just like GNU-Emacs style editors better.) Thanks. Marshall Abrams ab2r@midway.uchicago.edu
ab2r@quads.uchicago.edu (Marshall Abrams) (04/11/91)
In article <CB.91Apr8152627@tamarack12.timbuk> cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: >In article <7704@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> steiner@informatik.uni-kl.de > >Donald Steiner writes: >.... Going by people's comments about other PC Emacs's, I think that they >would also fail to meet my needs. But I have heard that the Brief editor is >fully configurable and extensible, *and* has multi-step UNDO and a lot of power. >If it's configurable, maybe it could be given an Emacs-like interface. I'd be >interested in others' experience with Brief, and opinions about how well it >could be made to emulate Emacs commands. I've configured Brief like Emacs--not in any thorough way, but as far as the basic key mappings. It's VERY easy to do this in Brief (mostly). In general, Brief is a very powerful piece of software. Nice windowing, especially. The extension language comes in either C-style or Lisp-style versions--your choice. However, I personally prefer a real Emacs most of the time. One small thing that I find annoying about Brief is that treats the whole screen as fair game for cursor movement, whether there's a character in a particular location or not. For example, normally, if you're at the end of the line and hit right-arrow, a few times, you don't end up on the next line, you just end up a few spaces to the right of where there's any text. (If you then insert some text, Brief fills up the space in front of where the cursor is with spaces or tabs.) (This is like GNU Emacs' picture mode, or the free cursor mode on the VMS EVE editor.) On the plus side, you CAN map right and left arrow, or ^F and ^B, as you like, to a function that WILL cause the cursor to wrap at the end of the line. Fine. However, as far as I know, there's no easy way to make the analagous thing happen with the up and down functions. I.e. suppose that your cursor is here--> and you want to go to the end of *this* line--> You need to first go down one line (down-arrow, ^N--however you've got it configured), and THEN call the end-of-line function (END is the normal key mapping). OK, I could probably write a macro that did this right, and I haven't bothered, but I wanted to point out that a quick remapping doesn't make Brief into Emacs. (Some may find this a trifling point, but it's something that annoys me, and probably others as well.) The other thing about remapping Brief to make it like Emacs is that the ESC key has a special status for Brief--it's intimately tied to the abort function. There may be a way to put the abort function on another key, so that ESC can be used as the Meta key, but it's by no means obvious how this would be done. I use ALT as if it were Meta. The last thing that I don't like about Brief is that sometimes have to use a 4.77 mhz 8088, and it's really slow on that machine. Some things are fast enough, but some basic functions, like "next word", have a noticeable delay. Obviously the thing wasn't intended to be used on such a slow machine. The sluggishness seems to be a result of the fact that many of brief's built in functions are written in the macro langage, and the macro language compiler doesn't compile to binary code--it just tokenizes the source code. I don't know how Brief is on a faster 8086; the only other machines I've run Brief on are 286's and 386's. Brief is fine on these machines, for most things. I once tried to do a column block delete on the entire length of a 4 meg file, and was about a third of the way through after two hours. (A search on the same size file would be done in minutes.) I should add that I've been using Brief 3.0. 3.1 is out, and I haven't tried it. I'm curious about Sage Professional Editor. Their ads claim to do everything that Brief does, but faster. (Well, something like that.) Anybody know about it. Also, I'd be interested in opinions about things that Brief does that are hard to do in Epsilon. Most importantly, I'd like to know how much like GNU Emacs are the default key mappings in Epsilon. (One of the reasons I prefer Freemacs to MicroEmacs is that I don't have to bother remapping keys to make Freemacs a lot like GNU.) Marshall Abrams