Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: LSE vs. TPU
Message-ID: <7396@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 17:10:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7396
Posted: Wed May 22 17:10:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 04:39:13 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 23

From: Kevin Carosso <engvax!KVC@cit-vax>

You can think of LSE as being an intelligent editor built out of TPU.
It's not quite as straightforward as simply being a pure TPU application,
because I think that they did hack the TPU sources somewhat in order to
get better performance out of LSE.  In fact, it may be that they didn't
really build LSE on top of TPU, but just converted the TPU source code
into LSE.

In any case, the relationship between the two is that LSE has TPU inside
it.  You can write TPU procedures within LSE and customize the editor.
There are a couple'a simple rules if you write TPU code in LSE, I guess
so you don't break some of the LSE internal functions.

One difference is that LSE does not come with the two editor front-ends
that TPU has, namely EVE and EDT.  LSE just looks like EDT.  I would like
to see an EVE interface for LSE, since I like it better than EDT.  I'll
probably end up reprogramming it to look like EMACS, which I've programmed
to look like VTEDIT (anyone else out there remember VTEDIT???) anyway,
so maybe that doesn't matter...

	/Kevin Carosso                 engvax!kvc @ CIT-VAX.ARPA
	 Hughes Aircraft Co.