Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvax1!deng
From: deng@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mingqi Deng)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: vi-like editor for PC
Message-ID: <F61-i2_@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 90 17:05:02 GMT
References: <F20!=o-@cs.psu.edu> <9JDZL1w162w@cybrspc>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 27


In article <9JDZL1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:
>
>> Stevie VI editor is available at SIMTEL20.ARPA. Its full path name
>
>[...]
>
>OK, I gotta ask... why would STEVIE be better if compiled under MSC?
>I got the sources and compiled under Turbo C, and I have no complaints.
>The only changes required were in the makefile.
>

I got a copy of the executable from SIMTEL20. It was compiled using
Turbo C after some modification to the source to suppress Turbo C
complaints (discussed in readme file). THe reason why I suspect it
better if compiled using MSC with no modification to the source is
this: with 450K free memory, it can only allow a file of size 120K
to be edited, while a half-sized file requies less than half memory.
It has few minor bugs too. This might have to do with the
modification, or with how the two compiler allocate dynamic memories
and optimize codes.

I am amzed that you did not have to modify the sorce when compiling
it using Turbo C. Could you send me a uuencoded copy of the
executable for me to try out? Thanks in advance.

Mingqi