Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Replace LSE with mg? (Re: LSE Gripes (was: does anybody use LSE?)) Message-ID: <1990Aug28.181650.21072@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 28 Aug 90 18:16:50 GMT References: <1990Aug27.092147.15405@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <18@screamer.csee.usf.edu> Distribution: comp.sys.amiga Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 30 stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: > >What's so bad about LSE? Probably not a thing. The argument being made is that, for folks who work on a lot of platforms and with a lot of products, it gets to be a pain having to use a proprietary editor with each, when a widely ported editor ( Unix emacs and its children) is available, well known and respected, and capable of being dropped in as a replacement for the proprietary products. I haven't used Amiga's ed or edit since I got a micro-emacs working here on Ami, and if the emacs clone shipped with the Amiga were a little more robust, I'd be using it daily. My USENet host seems to have only "vi" available, so I've had to relearn an editor I'd hoped never to see again after finding emacs. Since I swap screens with a keystroke, and edit alternately on my dial up host and on Ami, I'm forever using the keystrokes for the incorrect editor. I think this is the trouble most folks see with LSE, not that it has any quality problems per se. For me, again, I use emacs to edit code for Lattice C, and forego the integrated editor, nice as it might be, because adding another editor whose command keystrokes I must multiplex is more painful than is doing all my C development and debugging without the integrated development support. Kent, the man from xanth.