Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!wfp
From: wfp@dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: MicroGneEmacs vs. MicroEmacs vs. Jove vs.....
Summary: mg2a
Message-ID: <6211@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 2 Sep 88 07:40:06 GMT
References: <1156@umbc3.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To: wfp@dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips)
Organization: This Techie For Hire (tm)
Lines: 26

In article <1156@umbc3.UMD.EDU> alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>	What I would like is a small functional editor with as much emacs
>compatability as possible. I can live without some commands, but I would 
>like the existing commands to behave as much as possible like real emacs. 
>Since the primary use for this will be text processing, modes are not that 
>important.

>	So here's the question: Which flavor of micro-emacs is best for me?
>Does it matter? why?

I'd recommend mg2a (formerly known as MicroGnuEmacs), because it is small,
fast and portable, and uses the same command structure as GnuEmacs.  I've
installed it on two Unix systems, and it has been reasonably well received.
You don't indicate what you mean by "real emacs", but if you mean Gnu, then
I don't think there's any sensible alternative to mg.  If you're talking
about Unipress ore something, I'm not sure, but mg has a number of compile-
time options, and allows key rebinding, so you can probably make it look
pretty similar.  Naturally, it does not support all the functionality of
a full GnuEmacs (or other big emacs) implementation, but I find I never use
anything else on the Unix system -- the only thing I _do_ miss is "undo"!

-- 
William Phillips                 {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix           {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wfp
New York, NY, USA                !!! JUST SAY "NO" TO OS/2 !!!