Xref: utzoo comp.misc:5707 comp.editors:613
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!littlei!omepd!mipos3!nate
From: nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.editors
Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor
Message-ID: <3861@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 3 Apr 89 19:51:20 GMT
References: <248@usl-pc.usl.edu> <10099@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: woodstock@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Followup-To: comp.editors
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 43
In-reply-to: gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly)

In article <10099@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, gregg@ihlpb (Wonderly) writes:
>
>The point I was trying to make is that LISP is not a common language base for
>most people.  A more procedural language such as TPU looks and feels more
>comfortable.  E.g. something like the following is infinitely easier for me to
>read than lisp.

[TPU example deleted.]

Hmmm.  Easier for *you*, yes, not easier for me.  I think that lisp is
an excellent choice as an editor's "native: language.  It's a big win to
have the language that you write your editor init file with be the same
language that you type to the editor's command interpreter.  If you're
in TPU, looking at a buffer containing the TPU code you defined in your
example, how easy is it to change the buffer, and then instantly
re-evaluate the definition, so that the modified procedure is now
available in your editing session?

>Given the difference in speed (I know how DEC did this, the interpreter
>is a giant VAX case instruction) I would say that the EMACS I used on
>the same VAX as TPU was not very efficient.

This might very well be the case.  TPU is, however, infinitely
inefficient on VAXen running, say, Ultrix(tm, no doubt).  It has been
optimized to run on VAXen under VMS.  Emacs, on the other hand, will run
on VAX under VMS, 4.3BSD, Ultrix, etc., etc.  In fact, I've taken 200
line .emacs files under Ultrix, transferred them to VMS, and had the
exact same functionality (minus VMS BD'ed-ness) as on Ultrix.  Porting
my Emacs environment to my Sun 386i was as simple as rcp'ing my .emacs
file.

I would also be willing to bet that, if RMS had the motivation, he could
port Emacs over to VMS and optimize it so that it *would* run faster
than TPU.  Ie., the speed difference is because of portability concerns,
not because of the inherent Lispyness of Emacs.

Happy editing!
--woodstock
-- 
	   "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
	   and thinking...and suddenly you wake up."   - Hobbes

woodstock@hobbes.intel.com   ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate