Article View: comp.editors
Article #2614Re: Extension Languages
From: Michael Lemke
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:57
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:57
56 lines
3587 bytes
3587 bytes
In article <29DEC199208322560@author.gsfc.nasa.gov> rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (BOB KOEHLER) writes: >In article <1992Dec29.064438.24211@physiol.su.OZ.AU>, john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin) writes... > >>I don't know about the merits of TPU in the abstract. I just want to >>discourage everyone from using nu/TPU. It is a real pain in the bottom. >>It has very restrictive `oh no, you have pirated me' code built into >>it. Now I have _not_ tried to pirate the damn thing, all I have >>tried to do is support it for my users in a distributed computing >>environment, and the pirate-detction stuff is very flakey: all >>you have to do, just about, is breathe on the environment it's >>installed in, and the damn thing decides it's been pirated and >>refuses to run any more. And naturally, they've taken the >>security-through-obscurity approach (probably because they >>couldn't make it secure any other way), so there's not a >>shred of documentation on this stuff to help you figure out >>what it was you did `wrong', or how to fix it or avoid >>doing it in the future. >> >>Set knows I'm opposed to commercial software in general, but >>this sort of thing really needs to be stamped out. Please >>do not buy nu/TPU. >> > > I do know about TPU's merits in the abstract, and in the practical. I have >had no problems of any such manner with nu/TPU, and the problems I have gone >through have been well worth the result. A great full screen, character-cell >as well as X11 compatable editting interface, especially for those moving from >a VMS to UNIX or DOS environment already knowing DEC's EDT, or EVE, or >progamming in TPU. And an extension language specifially designed for writing >text editors (talk about the right tool for the job). There are, of course >competitors to nu/TPU in the TPU arena, as well as in the EDT-only arena which >should be considered before spending money. We consider our purchase as money >well spent, and intend to do so again in the future. > I just want to add that I also consider nu/TPU not worth any money considerably exceeding the distribution costs. It is still pretty buggy although the version I am using now is a significant improvement over the old version. Just an example (from the old version): If you tried to get help on TPU commands it looks up a second help library. But it won't find it because instead of looking at something like .../common/tpuhelp.hlb it needs .../common/common/tpuhelp.hlb which doesn't exit. All help is in .../common (or thereabouts). This is an obvious gross bug, not a subtle logic problem. TPU is full of those and I am really not surprized that you find problems in the licensing code. I haven't seen them myself but I only run it on a single machine. If nu/TPU wouldn't have these bugs it were a nice product. OTOH as I detest vi and emacs is no alternative either nu/TPU is still the best Unix editor available to me. Michael -- Michael Lemke Astronomy, UT Austin, Texas (michael@io.as.utexas.edu or UTSPAN::UTADNX::IO::MICHAEL [SPAN])
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec29.235734.18974@chpc.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!michaelReferences:
<1992Dec28.131000.79@dallas.sil.org> <1992Dec29.064438.24211@physiol.su.OZ.AU> <29DEC199208322560@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.editors Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!michael From: michael@chpc.utexas.edu (Michael Lemke) Subject: Re: Extension Languages Message-ID: <1992Dec29.235734.18974@chpc.utexas.edu> Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC References: <1992Dec28.131000.79@dallas.sil.org> <1992Dec29.064438.24211@physiol.su.OZ.AU> <29DEC199208322560@author.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:57:34 GMT Lines: 56