Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!norge.unet.umn.edu!fin
From: fin@norge.unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Xedit is better than vi and emacs
Message-ID: <3825@uc.msc.umn.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 91 23:58:53 GMT
References: <2197@pdxgate.UUCP> <3817@uc.msc.umn.edu> <1991Apr4.172610.27932@mtu.edu>
Sender: news@uc.msc.umn.edu
Organization: Univ Netw Serv, Univ of Minn
Lines: 28

In article <1991Apr4.172610.27932@mtu.edu> stuart@mtu.edu (Tim Prodin) writes:
>In article <3817@uc.msc.umn.edu>, fin@norge.unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth) writes:
>
>|> And if someone says, "it takes too much disk space, CPU time, etc.,"
	...
>|> all, 1991 and I run an Emacs-type editor on my RAM-disk-based laptop.
>|> What could be more disk-limited than that?

>Well sure.  If the resource is there, abuse it.  No sense writing efficent
>programs that are easy to use, small, fast and polite, becuase we can just
>by larger machines.  NOT!
>
>This attitude is really incredible.  "My computer is really big, so why 
>shouldn't I create a huge (1 Meg on a Symmetry Balance) editor that does
>everything (including playing Towers of Hanoi)?  So what if I burn 8 Meg
>of swap to create Hello world?"  

I believe that you mis-read the message.  My point was that even
programs like Emacs (often mistakenly thought to always be "huge" and
"awful") can still run on very resource limited environments.  I don't
consider a single, 384K RAM disk to be "really big," do you? (I leave
my floppy open for data.)

Craig A. Finseth			fin@unet.umn.edu [CAF13]
University Networking Services		+1 612 624 3375 desk
University of Minnesota			+1 612 625 0006 problems
130 Lind Hall, 207 Church St SE		+1 612 626 1002 FAX
Minneapolis MN 55455-0134, U.S.A.