the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: Rob Warnock on 11 Apr 2006 23:39 Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote: +--------------- | All the emacs mac ports suck more-or-less equally. That is, as I said, | why I'm reimplementing it in applescript. (To be precise: I'm | implementing a PDP10 emulator in applescript, and I then plan on | getting ITS up and running TECO emacs.) +--------------- Tim, Tim, why not just stop with TECO itself?!? ;-} O.k., VTECO, maybe... -Rob p.s. Hmmm... What does TECO have that Vi doesn't? Answer: Tests, branching, and looping in its macros. *Real* answer: Let's port VTECO to curses! That's the ticket! ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Benjamin Teuber on 12 Apr 2006 01:51 One more thing (although I don't quite agree with the others...): Would it be so hard to make the emacs windows (besides shell-mode which is great as it is) look like any other modern application? I know it's just "aesthetic sugar", but to me (x)emacs looks just terribly ugly... Benjamin
From: Robert Uhl on 12 Apr 2006 02:44 Benjamin Teuber <beteub(a)web.de> writes: > > Would it be so hard to make the emacs windows (besides shell-mode > which is great as it is) look like any other modern application? I > know it's just "aesthetic sugar", but to me (x)emacs looks just > terribly ugly... Well, no 'modern' apps that I know of have a mini-bar-like feature--and it's really key to a _lot_ of what makes emacs such a great environment. That, and the ability to get out of any problem without harming by hitting C-g until things return to normal... -- Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl> `What would you do if you won $1,000,000?' `Well, I guess I'd spend the first $900,000 on women and beer, then just waste the rest.'
From: Robert Figura on 12 Apr 2006 03:03 Rob Warnock wrote: > p.s. Hmmm... What does TECO have that Vi doesn't? > Answer: Tests, branching, and looping in its macros. It does, if you use metaprogramming. Regards - Robert Figura -- /* mandlsig.c v0.23 (c) by Robert Figura */ I=1702;float O,o,i;main(l){for(;I--;putchar("oO .,\nm>cot.bitamea\ @urigrf <raguFit erobR"[I%74?I>837&874>I?I^833:l%5:5]))for(O=o=l= 0;O*O+o*o<(16^l++);o=2*O*o+I/74/11.-1,O=i)i=O*O-o*o+I%74*.04-2.2;}
From: David Kastrup on 12 Apr 2006 05:01
"Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> XEmacs is not Emacs. > > Um, yes, it is. It is a fork, so you can't blame the Emacs developers for the deficiencies in XEmacs. Enabling font-lock by default in a version that is clearly not fit for general use is not something that happened in Emacs. When Emacs development made the decision to enable it by default in future versions, _months_ of work were invested until the state was deemed tolerable. And XEmacs has an even earlier version of font-lock. So for the purpose of complaining about unusable defaults, you simply can't blame the Emacs developers, and it is extremely unfair to chastize Emacs over several postings and then mention in passing that you are actually talking about XEmacs, a completely different project. > It may not be whatever your little cult prefers to anoint, Emacs is free software, and anybody may fork it if he wishes. Blaming the original developers for the bad design and code of people forking it, however, is not fair. >> The font lock code of XEmacs is older than that of Emacs 21.1, and >> Emacs 21.1 did not turn on font locking by default for _good_ >> reason. > > This is nothing to do with that - I used font lock on Xemacs on > sub-100-MHz (probably sub 50MHz) machines just fine, and before FSF > Emacs *had* fonts (well, technically I used it on lemacs of course). That's probably some entirely different code. Anyway, the problem with the XEmacs font lock code is that it does _not_ work "just fine" in all cases, merely in most. Whether this has been different at some previous time, no idea. But at the current point of time, XEmacs font-lock is trailing behind the Emacs code considerably. >> And what one hears about the XEmacs MacOSX port does not >> particularly recommend it, anyway. > > All the emacs mac ports suck more-or-less equally. What did you find wrong with Yaced? I have not used it myself (as I don't _have_ MacOSX), but from what I heard it should be a pretty straightforward Mac Port, and MacOSX certainly appears well-supported in the Emacs-CVS code base. > That is, as I said, why I'm reimplementing it in applescript. (To > be precise: I'm implementing a PDP10 emulator in applescript, and I > then plan on getting ITS up and running TECO emacs.) You might experience some difference in usability as compared to Yaced, and I doubt it is all positive. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum |