Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!super.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!spolsky
From: spolsky@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joel Spolsky)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: vi vs. emacs
Message-ID: <5744@super.upenn.edu>
Date: 4 Aug 88 20:57:45 GMT
References: <16697@brl-adm.ARPA> <12496@ism780c.isc.com> <1186@ficc.UUCP> <12604@ism780c.isc.com> <1208@ficc.UUCP>
Sender: news@super.upenn.edu
Reply-To: spolsky@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Joel Spolsky)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 21

In article <1208@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Funny, this Emacs doesn't seem to have lisp. In fact, it's got a sort
>of forth-like language. Oh, this one over here doesn't even have that
>much. Hmmmm... are we comparing vi to GNU Emacs only, or to all
>Emacsen? I dare say that GNU Emacs might make a believer out of me...
>if only I could run it on this poor old 80286.

From his .sig:

>"You made a TIME MACHINE out of a VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE?"




Running gnu Emacs on a '286 is a little bit like making a time machine
out of a VW beetle... :-)

BTW does anyone have a good Common Lisp interpreter for my HP41C?

Joel Spolsky