🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes:

    Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an
   *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for
   MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned?

Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU
Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K.  Choose MicroEMACS
if you want to be able to run the exact same program on both DOS and
Unix.

--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal.  -- Irv Chidsey

In article <NELSON.91May14222846@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:
>In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes:
>
>    Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an
>   *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for
>   MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned?
>
>Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU
>Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K.  Choose MicroEMACS
>if you want to be able to run the exact same program on both DOS and
>Unix.

I agree! Dr. Mark Boyd and I have  just spent the  past several months
immersed in  GNU, Freemacs, MicroEmacs  and several comercial variants
while writing THE  UNIX DESKTOP GUIDE TO  EMACS (out  in  August  from
Howard W. Sams). In my personal setup (I'm a full-time  writer) I have
both a  Unix system and several DOS  boxes. I use  Freemacs on DOS and
GNU on Unix. If there is a DOS file > 64K to  edit,  just ship it over
to the Unix side ;-).

So, for what it's worth, there you have my preference.
                                                        --Ralph


--
Ralph Roberts  author@cs.unca.edu    |     The Desktop Guide to Emacs 
               Asheville, N.C.       |     Compute!'s Computer Viruses 
               (704) 252-9515        |    The Veteran's Guide To Benefits
               (704) 255-8719 (fax)  |  + 17 other books & 1000s of articles

To answer the question about memacs version, I just downloaded 3.10 from
the Portal archives and I think it was at least a year old.  Not sure but
definitely not within the last few months.  I have heard a rumor that 3.11
is released or about to be released but that is only indistinct muttering
and could be the wind in the trees...

Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com    3.10 looks REAL good

In article <NELSON.91May14222846@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

   In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com
   (Ken Bernstein) writes:

       Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS
       and have an *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another
       shareware EMACS for MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I
       have mentioned?

   Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU
   Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K.  Choose
   MicroEMACS if you want to be able to run the exact same program on
   both DOS and Unix.

Well, maybe.  But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I
stick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix
(dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up
something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save).

John Hughes

In article <JOHN.91May16230345@gna.axis-design.fr> john@gna.axis-design.fr (John Hughes) writes:

   Well, maybe.  But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, ...

How about reporting it to me as a bug?  Unreported bugs don't get fixed --
I'm not clarivoyant.

--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal.  -- Irv Chidsey

Originally it was written:
>       Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS
>       and have an *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another
>       shareware EMACS for MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I
>       have mentioned?
>

Apparently not.  See below.  (Other folks are quoted using %, names
omitted to avoid getting personal about this sort of thing :-)

<person A>
%  Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU
%  Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K.  Choose
%  MicroEMACS if you want to be able to run the exact same program on
%  both DOS and Unix.

<person B>
%  Well, maybe.  But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I
%  sick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix
%  (dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up
%  something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save).

I think that it is terribly unfair to describe MicroEMACS as "horrid."

  In these modern days, many folks think that GNU EMACS is the only
definition of the editor.  I beg to differ.  While I use GNU EMACS all
the time on the Sparcs hereabouts, the "emacs" I first learned was a
set of "editing macros" that worked with TECO on a PDP-11 and lisp
was nowhere to be found.

  In the mean time there have been many different native implementations
of EMACS using different approaches and having different features.
FREEMACS is apparently fairly similar to GNU EMACS, with the limitation
of 64K.  MicroEMACS is a good solid EMACS that runs on lots of machines
and doesn't have the 64K limit, but doesn't try to emulate the GNU dialect
and the lisp extension language.  MicroEMACS does have a good extension
language and lots of folks are happy with it.  A third widely used MSDOS
alternative is JOVE (Jonathan's Own Version of EMACS), which isn't as
extensible but is fast and small and handles more than 64K.

  The facts are that one's preference in EMACS implementations is a
religious issue for most folks.  The thing to do is to go grab any
or all of these from archive sites on the net and try them out.  Use
the one that you like best or another if you prefer it.  The IEEE POSIX.2
standards group looked into whether the EMACS editor should be included
in the standard the way that the vi editor was included.  The overwhelming
response from the EMACS community was that it should NOT be standardised.
Part of this was because there were and are so many variants that one
couldn't find a very large common ground out there.

In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes:

> Can someone tell me the most current version of MicroEMACS. I have a copy
>of version 3.9; dated 1987, but it doesn't seem to work. Before I spend a
>lot of time debugging it, I'd like to know if there is a more current version. 

	Many people are using version 3.9 of MicroEMACS with no
problems. Please try to be more specific when you make a statement like
this, under what machine/OS does it fail and how does it fail. Also
where did you get this version.... a lot of people hack at it and
redistribute, not always maintining its functionality.

	The current distribution version is 3.10 and is available from
midas.mgmt.purdue.edu for anonymous FTP outside the hours 8 am to 5pm
weekdays (central time). Version 3.11 is in BETA test right now.

> Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an
>*objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for
>MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned?

	Well, I would be hard pressed to call me objective....

	Freemacs is an MSDOS editor written in assembly code and is very
fast. It is built around a language called MINT and is easily extensable
using that language. It edits files up to 64K in length. It has very
good support (Russ Nelson is on the net and active).

	MicroEMACS is a very portable editor, running on many different
platforms. It has an extention language, and can be customized in many
ways. It is written in C and can be easily ported to new machines. I
support this editor here and on my BBS.

>	Thomas W. Banister		
>	(somewhat intelligent mailers)	twb@cci.com
>	(not so intelligent mailers)	...!{rit,uupsi}!cci632!twb

			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	mdbs!dan@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533

 
  I think that EMACS is the best editor ever made ... for Unix. But on the
PC side, there is a program called QEDIT, which will edit files bigger
the 64K, and has full on-line help and menuing system. I really really
like it - all keys are definable. Currently I have a map that is similar
to the Turbo Editor keys, but you can redefine it any way you want. 
Isn't Freemacs/ Micro Emacs a disk/memory hog just like the Unix Version?
Anyone else use QEDIT? Check it out sometime, it is really nifty.

-Eric

In article <28342a28.48a8@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Eric) writes:

   Isn't Freemacs ...  a disk/memory hog just like the Unix Version?

Not that I know of.  The executable plus all the MINT code is only 200 KB,
and that includes Fortran-mode, Lisp-mode, and Mail-mode.  Typically,
when I shell out to DOS, Freemacs only takes 120 KB (not all the MINT
code is loaded by default).

--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal.  -- Irv Chidsey

In article <28342a28.48a8@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Eric) writes:
>Anyone else use QEDIT? Check it out sometime, it is really nifty.


I use it once in a while.. we have it at work and such..

From what I"ve seen it *is* great, although I'd rather use the same editor
on all the machines I use (Atari, IBM, unix, Macintosh, etc) so I tend
to stay with the Emacs clones so I don't get too confused.

-- 
--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Jeremy J Starcher         !  No programmer programs in LOGO after reaching
r3jjs@vax1.cc.uakron.edu  !  age 14...
r3jjs@akronvm.bitnet      !

In article <JOHN.91May16230345@gna.axis-design.fr> john@gna.axis-design.fr (John Hughes) writes:
>Well, maybe.  But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I
>stick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix
>(dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up
>something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save).
>
>John Hughes

	Well, if you add the following to your emacs.rc file for that
horrid MicroEMACS:

	set $lterm 10

	it will do exactly that, translating <LF> to <RET><LF> on
reading and translating <RET><LF> to <LF> on writing. (Any version from
3.10 forward).

			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	mdbs!dan@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533