Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!petrilli From: petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: Choosing an editor. Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 91 04:59:39 GMT References: <6338@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1991Jun06.021811.26256@convex.com> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: /home/gp/petrilli/.organization Lines: 52 In-reply-to: datri@convex.com's message of 6 Jun 91 02:18:11 GMT Anthony A. Datri writes: >help me), we might be able to help. I'm going to suggest GNU >Emacs if at all possible, since it is the ONE and ONLY TRUE EMAS. Your confusion is matched only by your spelling. If any emacs is the "true" emacs, then it's the original PDP-10 implementation. I do believe that GNU Emacs is the Emacs as it was always intended to be. Simply because something is the orginal version does not make it the TRUE version. If it was, I believe RMS would use Emacs on a PDP-10, but instead he uses GNU Emacs v18.57 I believe (he may use v19 by now). It is really not worth arguing about... I used to use TECO, and while it was wonderful (definately a step up from that god-forsaken KED under RT-11), I would not go back to it. It does, however, make for nice quick macros. I believe that sometime in the future, GNU Emacs will contains the full TECO implementation. Since RMS wrote GNU Emacs (primarily), I consider it the REAL Emacs. > The rest (Gosling/UniPress included) are close, but not quite > there... they are missing the FULLBLOWN Lisp environment, GC and > all. You're joking, right? The PDP-10 implementation spoke TECO. According to my memory and all accounts I've read, Gosmacs predated gnumacs, and therefore mocklisp predated elisp. But MACLisp predates tehm all, and that is basically what Elisp is derived from. I recall reading statements ascribed to RMS that indicated that early versions of gnumacs even used some of Gosling's code. I do believe this was true for a short period of time, until the sections of code could be rewritten, but then again BSD contains AT&T code, does that make it the same? Gnumacs is a fine peice of work, but it's not the Deity. It's also a huge binary. Unfortunately, the Lisp environment does enlarge Emacs, but I do think the effort is worth it. Also, since I only load Emacs at most 1 time per day, the size isn't a problem (interesting note: on a Sequent Balance, it takes only 2 minutes to load Emacs, but on an HP 9000/350 it takes about 15 secs, hmmm....). Also, it is GNU Emacs, not Gnumacs :-). Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.