Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Wanted: WordStar-like editor
Message-ID: <5339@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 89 14:46:41 GMT
References: <26464@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <2167@trantor.harris-atd.com> <1309@hounix.UUCP> <6%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 22

In article <6%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes:
>I am astonished that no CP/M or MS-DOS programmer, frustrated with VI and
>EMACS, has yet written a simple WS-based programmer's editor (akin to the
>Turbo language editors).  I'm cross-posting this to alt.msdos-programmer, but
>please direct followups to comp.editors only.

For several years, when I was writing code on a UNIX system, I did most of
my editing locally on a CP/M machine using WS, then uploading the file for
compilation (personally, I always felt I was *downloading* the file, based
on observed system performance!).  Editing over a serial port on a time
sharing system is such a drag compared to direct screen updates, and WS on
my old CP/M box was *fast*, unlike the first WS versions that came out
later for the IBM/PC.

BTW, now I have thrown in the towel and use Unipress EMACS on UNIX systems
which have the license, Microemacs on UNIX systems that don't, Epsilon on
a PC Clone, and (on few rare occasions) MINCE (an EMACS clone) on the 
old CP/M box.  Epsilon gets about 99% of the use.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply