🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SWANSONC.91Apr12175820@grendel3.acc.stolaf.edu> swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu (Chris Swanson) writes:
>
>What "Unix" are you running that does not impliment some kind of paged
>or virtual memory?  

    I'm running on Motorola's Delta 3600 system, SYSV R3.2, and it has
virtual memory.


>I know it's alot compared to Epsilon, and I'm sure that Epsilon is a
>nice editor, but your claims of Emacs using > 8 MB of RAM is somewhat
>high in my book.

    I have acknowleged that those numbers are excessive (but they are
correct).  I had to do the port to my system based on the documentation
in emacs, and it's entirely likey that it was not done correctly.  On the
other hand, I have, and do use emacs on other systems.


>I agree that Emacs may be a bit much for a low-end PC system, but
>let's not slam it out of hand, ok?

    I'm not slamming emacs - if I didn't like it, I wouldn't like
epsilon.  I just prefer epsilon.

    And to answer another note about being able to enter extension
language directly into epsilon: EEL is compiled, not interpreted.
You can edit the eel file, compile it (from within epsilon), and load
the compiled code in, making it available and active.  I have a function
that does precisely that.

    And while C may or may not have an advantage over lisp for string
work, most folks I know can program a lot better in C than they can in
lisp.  I can program in lisp, I just don't like to.

    Finally, I do not mean to say in absolute terms: "epsilon is better
than emacs".  I just much prefer it.


-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.