Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!!rlk
From: rlk@.COM (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: "emacs" in general
Message-ID: <5680@think.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jun-87 17:10:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: think.5680
Posted: Mon Jun 22 17:10:07 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jun-87 05:08:44 EDT
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: rlk@THINK.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22

In article <8706221600.AA14467@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> jr@LF-SERVER-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson) writes:

]	 GNU is probably the most faithful in its replication of
]detail, though technology has increased its power mightily since, as
]elisp is a far more elegant extension language that TECO.

GNU Emacs is probably about the LEAST faithful in its replication of
detail.  It is probably the MOST faithful in its replication of the
spirit of the original emacs (power, extensibility, ease of use...)
This is not, of course, a disadvantage at all; rather, it indicates
that RMS has learned from the shortcomings of the original Emacs and
as a result has made GNU Emacs a far superior editor.  Many authors of
alternative emacs-type editors have not learned, and as a result they
have an editor worthy of the late 1970's.

For example, CCA Emacs is truly a clone of the original Emacs.  It
looks exactly the same, it has the same "features" such as typeout
windows, one-shot undo, etc.  GNU Emacs, on the other hand, uses
ordinary buffers for "typeout", has much more undo capability, and is
overall a much cleaner implementation.

Robert^Z