Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!boulder!ccncsu!ncr-fc!frodo From: frodo@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (David Fletcher) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: Emacs anecdote and comparison to other editors [was: Re: Emacs] Message-ID: Date: 22 Feb 90 00:22:35 GMT References: <48626@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <320@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> Sender: news@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO Lines: 27 In-reply-to: baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM's message of 17 Feb 90 04:29:43 GMT baur> From article <48626@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, by casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom): casey> I can't resist ... baur> Neither can I ... baur> It is interestng that the (very good) emacs variant JOVE, is smaller than baur> vi while providing more features. I happen to like GNUemacs, and am willing to tolerate its size. However, the "best" editor I have ever seen was developed at Edinburgh University and called "top" (or "thief"). It provided multiple windows, incremental regular expression search (using the Boyer-Moore-Gosper algorithm), and a number of other features. It was blazingly fast, ran on a number of machines, written in C, and took only 35K (on a VAX 11/780 running bsd4.2)! Wow! Granted, it didn't have an extension language. However, top/thief at 35K beats JOVE by a fair amount (about 70%). I think the British have long been overlooked in their ability to write software. -- David Fletcher, Advanced Development, NCR Microelectronics 2001 Danfield Court, |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ft. Collins, CO 80525 | "I'm only visiting this planet." (303) 223-5100 x 432 | -- Larry Norman